Smart CCTV Networks Driving AI-Powered Apartheid in South Africa - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/pa7nek/smart-cctv-networks-are-driving-an-ai-powered-apartheid-in-south-africa <comment><USER2> That was a lot of reading to fail to come anywhere near supporting the premise of the article. I suspect the author started writing before they knew how to corale the facts as they exist to support the headline supposition which I suspect predate the evidence.

For a start SA is a country where you can't depend on the civil police force. They might as well not exist.

Secondly, the fact of the matter is, the crime types being discussed are generally commented 99%+ of the time by people from a particular racial background. That's neither surprising, contentious or relevant.

More divisive language to generate negative sentiment against the white minority in SA.

If you aren't party to the cancerousb corrupt politics of SA it makes Trump look moderate and sane

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, I can't describe how weird it is to see this story on HN. I live in a suburb that has these cameras and for so long I've been the only person I know that's remotely concerned about the implications of having face detection capable cameras, at every corner.

In fact, I'm writing this comment using the aerial fibre lines mentioned in the article, and after reading this I am genuinely unsure if I should cancel my line. I really do not want to be funding private surveillance of my entire city.

Having said that, I have some thoughts on the article, and I would like to put them in writing, partly to clarify them for myself.

1\. Holy shit

I want to start off by saying __holy shit __, because it is the first reaction I had to this story. Living right next to these things, I was only aware of a small amount of what is being reported in this article. I don 't know if this is just because I don't read much local news or because the local reporting on this is not that great, either way, this is the first time I'm hearing about a lot of the details of the companies and processes involved.

I think what is most shocking to me is that (1) the fibre lines were installed primarily for the purposes of surveillance. (2) A single private company has access to footage across the entire city. (3) The cameras are already being used for evil.

(1) is crazy not because the purpose of why something was installed matters much now, but mostly because it's crazy to me that I got excited about getting fibre and my entire neighbourhood being covered in fibre, when I actually getting pumped about my entire neighbourhood being covered with modern surveillance cameras. I signed up for fibre, at my house, the day it was available, and I feel kind of stunned that I actually played a role in this thing coming into existence.

(2) is one of the most disturbing new things I learned from this article. Vumacam is creating networks of networks which means that not only will all of the new cameras and footage belong to one company, but old networks will be integrated too. Meaning that, one company will essentially have access to the entire city. This map of their coverage and planned coverage shows how insane this is [https://video- images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1574373771175-V...](https://video- images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1574373771175-Vumacam-coverage- cropped-1.jpeg?resize=1050)

If they really do reach their goal of covering that much area with their cameras, they will have a version of the sonar machine from the Dark Knight, or the airplane from the "Eye in the Sky" episode of radiolab [https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/sky](https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/sky)

It would be absurd to give this power to a government, yet a lone a private company. I wouldn't trust the current SA government or vumacam, with these cameras, even right now, and who knows what both of these entities might become or change into. However, at least if the cameras were in the hands of a government, they couldn't be acquired easily. As it stands, someone who is just very wealthy, could probably acquire vumacam and have access to footage of the entire city. What if it were, instead, Naspers [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naspers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naspers) that buys vumacam? Suddenly there would be a company with questionable ties to China, owning footage of the entire city. Probably wouldn't be great for anyone participating in a pro Hong Kong march, not that there have been any in SA, but still.

(3) The fact that there these cameras are __already __being used for evil hit me hard. Everyone should read the log and actions, that are produced by these cameras:[https://web.archive.org/web/20150317191310/http://fibrehoods...](https://web.archive.org/web/20150317191310/http://fibrehoods.co.za/images/iSentry_Shift_Report_Oct%2014%202014.pdf)

What is occurring in this log is insane. Normal people being stopped, monitored and intimidated for doing nothing, would be awful in any country but it is particularly bad in SA, where, like the article mentions, this occurred with a paper system against black people, under Apartheid.

This is very surprising to me, because I thought this is something that would probably happen in the future, and not something that would be happening right now.

2\. Huawei

I just want to take this time to briefly mention that state owned china tech is all over this network. When the cables were being installed, people with Huawei reflector vests were all over my neighbourhood. If you look at the camera's, they are all made by Hikvision. My fibre modem is also made by Huawei. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's very possible the CCP could gain access to every camera on this network.

3\. Race

The article has rightly focused on how this camera network particularly affects black people. This is absolutely true, and all the points it makes on this are, I think, correct. However, part of me wishes that the article would've eventually turned to speak about the effects of the network on everyone, black and white. I don't disagree that in the short term and maybe even quite far into the future, it will be black people that are affected the worst by this system. But I think the article has left out that the predominantly white neighbourhoods where the cameras are being installed, will inevitably be used to surveil on those who wanted them installed in the first place, to "reduce crime". Whatever crime might be defined as in the future.

3\. Crime

Crime is covered in the article, but not well. And I think their coverage of it felt a little out of touch, given that it is a major reason for people wanting these cameras in the first place. Funnily enough, the author has a quote in the article, which I think does perfectly describe what crime feels like in SA, but without fully expanding on the contents of the quote.

> "I think the closer the crime is to your person, the harder it hits people."

This is 100% true. It is hard for me to accurately describe my experience with crime in SA, but I will try, and expand on this quote anyway.

I, luckily, have not been that badly affected by crime. But even with just the few minor encounters I have had with it, I still feel scared, everywhere, all the time.

One story I can share is when I was almost robbed. This is a minor incident, compared to other stuff in SA, but it affected me badly. I was watching TV and heard a loud banging near my gate. Thought it was just construction. Nbd. But It carries on for a minute, so I decide to get up and check what's going on. I see someone with a hammer hitting my gate over and over again, trying to break in. I didn't know how far they had gotten. I didn't know how strong my gate was, all I knew was that their intent was to get into my house and in the best case, steal some stuff.

When I saw the guy trying to break in, I was initially very confused. It probably took me 10-15 seconds before I realised what was going on. Once I understood what was going on, I then had to call my security company and get everyone into a safe place. It's hard to explain, but making the call was mentally fatiguing. I don't know why, but everything from doing the unlock pattern on my phone, to selecting the right contact, took effort. Like I had never done it before. At the same time, I was trying to lock all the doors, and also head deeper into the house. It was a goddamn nightmare. When me, and everyone else that was with me, finally got as many doors between us and the outside as we could, we just had to sit there and hope really hard that none of us would be hurt. It took a couple of minutes but eventually our security company arrived and gave us the all clear. The guy had run away for some reason.

So, when the author says: "To guard against crime, the mostly white, wealthy households of the suburbs have traditionally been fortified with high concrete walls, electric wire, guard dogs, surveillance cameras, and alarm systems." I feel like their tone is particularly unhelpful because they don't discuss any of the 'why', why people have high walls, electric fences and cameras. Instead we just get, what feels like to me, a snarky comment that rich white people have high walls and want cameras.

So yeah, I have high walls and an alarm because every day I am worried about being murdered in my house. And I have to say, that ultimately the thing the article neglects, is that its ridiculously scary to live in SA, and particularly Johannesburg. You are on edge all the time. Wherever you go you are scared. At least that's true for me, and I suspect its true for the people that are pro these cameras.

Living here, it's very easy for me to see the other side of this, if less people die, and I feel personally safer because some company I have never heard of installs cameras everywhere, how could you say no, especially if you have had personal experiences with crime?

Personally, I think blanketing the city with privately owned cameras does not justify the ends of crime possibly going down. What it could lead to, is much worse than the crime we have now. But crime in SA is a real problem, and if people in much safer countries are struggling to fight off face detection everywhere, all the more reason we should understand the reasons people want these cameras. It's probably not because they are racist or rich, but just because they are scared.</comment>


Paseto Is a Secure Alternative to the JOSE Standards (JWT, Etc.) - <AUTHOR> https://paragonie.com/blog/2018/03/paseto-platform-agnostic-security-tokens-is-secure-alternative-jose-standards-jwt-etc <comment><USER2> Lobste.rs discussion: [https://lobste.rs/s/lifhf7/paseto_is_secure_alternative_jose](https://lobste.rs/s/lifhf7/paseto_is_secure_alternative_jose)</comment>


US tech giant Apple doubles China donations for Covid-19 recovery efforts - <AUTHOR> https://www.platformexecutive.com/news/app-stores/apple-doubles-china-donations-for-covid-19-recovery-efforts/ <comment><USER2> Blogspam of

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus- apple-...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-apple- idUSKBN21J45L)</comment>


I Got Flagged on Hacker News Because I Followed an Advise from Joseph Sugarman - <AUTHOR> Yesterday I shared a link to one of my blog post about what building a successful company has in common with letting your hair grow for 18 months.
I got flagged.
(I think) The reason is that in the story I mentioned a girl/accountant I met at the airport of LAX, with whom I scheduled a business meeting. Then I asked the readers to signup to know what happened at that meeting (SPOILER: nothing).
I did it because I followed one advise by Joseph Sugarman (famous American copywriter), that I learned reading his renowned book "Adweek copywriting handbook".
He uses the same writing technique (with a similar example) in that book, to arise readers' attention.
In any case I understand the reason why I got "Flagged", and I wanted to say sorry. I still think it's a great post though, so I've re-written it removing the misleading part.
The title is the same: "The Business Lessons I Learned from Not Cutting My Hair for 18 Months".
Peace <comment><AUTHOR> You can read the updated version here [https://matteomosca.io/the-business- lessons-i-learned-from-n...](https://matteomosca.io/the-business-lessons-i- learned-from-notcutting-my-hair-for-18-months)

</comment><comment><USER2> Lesson #2: Know Your Customers... > [https://neilpatel.com/blog/joseph- sugarman/](https://neilpatel.com/blog/joseph-sugarman/)</comment>


Learning Is More Important Than Knowing - <AUTHOR> http://openmymind.net/2012/4/18/Learning-Is-More-Important-Than-Knowing/

<comment><USER2> Not that this is the case here (indeed, I <3 Karl Seguin), but I find this mantra being used by mediocre developers to cover their ignorance more and more these days. Yes, learning is more important than knowing, but that doesn't excuse you from knowing, especially the basics. Claim you're a senior web developer, and I expect you to know how to do CSS/JS/HTML. I expect you to have a reasonable idea of how to deploy your app to production. I expect you to know how to write raw sql to get around the leaky abstraction that is your ORM. The sad truth is that I've interviewed more than enough 'senior developers' who couldn't do any of these things. "I don't know, but I can learn," they say. You've been doing this for five years, shouldn't you have learned these things by now?

<comment><USER3> Right, but you're making a completely false dichotomy ...

Actually, the problem you described as nothing to do with what the OP mentions. You might even have a bigger chance to attract those profiles with an ad that specifically targets a language than by being broader.

So, yes, of course, if you call yourself a senior programmer in something, you should actually know the technology, but once again, it's not the point of the OP

<comment><USER2> Sorry, it was a sleepy comment in the early hours of the morning. I don't mean to present it as contrary to Seguin's article. It's simply a side-conversation about the (perceived) rising usage of the phrase by unskilled developers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As a hirer at a startup, I am _far_ more interested in ability to learn than in current skills. In a startup, nobody knows what tomorrow may bring. I utilize ability to learn as insurance against unknown changes/pivots in the future.

Every day brings new challenges. I don't want to be stuck in yesterday's world because my engineers don't know what _today's_ world really looks like.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think that sometimes companies mention trivial things like their choice of revision control software in their job listings as a kind of semi-deliberate way of saying "This job is intended for inexperienced developers. If you're thinking it's cute that we mentioned our VCS, you're too experienced (and expensive) for us."

<comment><USER6> I always thought that was just filler.

HR to engineer: "Your requirement list is too short, our ad won't look important enough."

Engineer to HR: "Fine, here's some more buzzwords to fill-in the blank space."

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Actually what you knew, except algorithm design, if else, loops and other metaprogramming essentials, is worth nil in the coding business. Anything you know specifically related to one language will quickly be outdated until you graduate or finish that book.

"So you know z framework? Oh but this is version x.y and we practically wrote it from the ground up! Which makes your sql incantations explode with glee and errors. Mostly errors..."

Knowledge can be gathered, can be learned. But you cannot "learn" learning.

<comment><USER8> On the contrary, learning to learn is exactly what graduate school teaches.

<comment><USER7> This, I believe, depends on where you get your education. Graduate school teaches something in where I live but it is mostly memorizing the right information at the right time (like finals or visas) then you can safely forget it.

If your graduate school eschewed rote learning, perfect. But there are some countries who still structure their educational system while thinking this kind of teaching means something...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Good post, though, I should point out that _some_ companies might not have the time to let a developer get up to speed on a particular technology, they they haven't used before.

<comment> hippee-lee For a true start up I agree with you, they do not have the time. I am guessing this is what you mean by some companies?

For established companies with legacy code bases older than two years, there is always going to be a getting up to speed period. To pass smart people over because they chose the wrong buzz word for the focus of their last job (or the buzz words recently changed) is a great way to always have people that need to get up to speed on your team.

<comment><USER10> Google builds in a solid six months to get all new hires up to speed.

Of course, that's the relaxed end of the spectrum. At a freshly-minted startup, I wouldn't be surprised if spending a week familiarizing yourself with the project's _codebase_ (let alone the language/framework) was pushing it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Not a great title.

Integration > Application > Understanding > Information when it comes to learning.

We can get all the information we want, and trivial things are easier to understand, but taking what we know and integrating it to our process is a crucial process.

</comment><comment><USER12> So this guy wouldn't want to work on Google, Twitter or Amazon because they use Java?...</comment>


Ask HN: Which stocks are you holding? What is the 10x stock for the next 5 year - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> i'm no expert but here is my opinion, feel free to criticize:

The world of hardware is going through a lot of growth lately with power hungry Machine Learning models and the arrival of self-driving cars (even semi-autonomous cars), cars have been transitioning to becoming computers on wheels.

I'm long on AMD, NVIDIA, and MU (for its upcoming non-volatile RAM).

Hope this helps, cheers!

<comment><AUTHOR> All semicon plays.

I am reading the book AI Superpowers, China, Silicon Valley and the new world order by Kai Fu Lee. He predicts China will be the leader in this race.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm a believer in tools that enable transactions on the smaller scale. Think SQ, SHOP, and eventually Stripe whenever they IPO. Tools like these, once integrated into the checkout/payment funnel, tend to remain in-place. The one caveat for these would be if we were to see a dramatic downturn in the economy. Smaller stores would likely experience revenue declines, translating to fewer total dollars flowing through these systems, so it's worth keeping that in-mind if you choose to invest in this space.</comment>


Dear Amazon, We Picked Your New Headquarters for You - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/09/upshot/where-should-amazon-new-headquarters-be.html?utm_content=bufferea91b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer <comment><USER2> I'm surprised to see Philadelphia eliminated so quickly, it ticks almost all of the boxes, and has a very large number of engineering schools (UPenn, Penn State, Drexel, Temple, Princeton, Rutgers, etc). It's transit is better than many of the other cities, and it has 2 major development plots in the city with existing full tax abatements.

Not to mention its proximity to NYC and Washington, DC via Amtrak (~1h20m to NYC, ~1h50m to DC)

Transit: [http://www.septa.org/site/images/system- map-1400-lrg-03.30.1...](http://www.septa.org/site/images/system- map-1400-lrg-03.30.17.jpg)

Locations w/ Tax Abatements: [http://navyyard.org](http://navyyard.org)

[http://www.schuylkillyards.com](http://www.schuylkillyards.com)

<comment><USER3> Philly was dropped by the "job growth is strong" rule, which is also drops many other cities which would otherwise be fully qualified. So the question really is why would Amazon have that rule and how willing are they to bend in it.

Why would Amazon want that rule? Wouldn't it just mean there's more competition for employees? It strikes me as the type of rule put in to ensure their secret favorite gets chosen.

<comment><USER4> "More competition for employees" translates into higher costs.

<comment><USER5> Are you purposefully reiterating the GP's point? Because that's exactly why he's questioning it.

<comment><USER4> I misinterpreted the comment as asking why Amazon would drop cities with strong job growth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This really burns me. The Times compared the metro population of Grand Rapids (1 million) to Detroit's population (670,000) in order to disqualify the city in their first round.

But metro Detroit has a population of 4.5 million so the Times either was sloppy with their criteria or they deliberately snubbed Detroit.

Detroit may be a dark horse in this competition but with Dan Gilbert going all out to win I don't think you can count them out just yet even if the New York Times hastily does.

<comment><USER6> I think this is an excellent point. While Detroit has a relatively small population, it's metropolitan area does not. It's large metropolitan area has a large STEM talent pool thanks to the automotive sector, the second largest Delta hub (behind Atlanta and just a giant airport anyways), and has a very willing government plus Dan Gilbert.

It'll be a uphill battle, but I think Detroit is a serious dark horse.

<comment><USER7> but big question is, will Amazon go into automotive sector? otherwise, I don't see Detroit being their pick.

<comment><USER8> Perhaps the point was that there may be some transferable technical talent already in place. Plenty of programmers, statisticians, UX experts, data scientists and IT folks needed for modern auto companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Or, Amazon's announcement could just be a move to get Seattle to stop their attacks on local businesses. The Seattle Times has routinely run pretty negative articles on Amazon, and suddenly today they ran a positive one. I think the Times has gotten the message.

[http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/end-of- amazon...](http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/end-of-amazons- seattle-monogamy-should-be-lesson-to-civic-leaders/)

<comment><USER10> It's pretty hard to argue that Amazon's relationship with the city is not toxic.

<comment><USER9> Seattle elected and re-elected Kshama Sawant to the city council. She is an avowed socialist, and is openly hostile to Boeing and Amazon. At one point she wanted to nationalize Boeing.

I'd think twice about investing in anything under her sway.

<comment><USER11> She's an elected official, which means some Seattle people seem to think her ideas are worthwhile.

<comment><USER9> That's right, she's reflective of the community. And if that community is hostile to Amazon/Boeing, why should they continue to invest in that community?

The Seattle mayoral election candidates are all well over on the left. There isn't even anyone to vote for if you aren't on the left.

<comment><USER11> Out of curiosity, what has Amazon actually "invested" in the community?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I know they eliminated Pittsburgh right out of the gate, but I think it has a bunch of things going for it. It's one of the few places where housing is cheap (but a pretty beautiful downtown) but young tech workers would love to live: tons of stuff to do but lots of knowledge workers with CMU. Biggest obvious issue is no direct flights to Seattle, but if Amazon built a headquarters there it seems like it would be easy to reach critical mass to add more flights

<comment><USER13> Yeah, I'm a bit surprised at this.

Pittsburgh is probably really close to ideal. I can't really think of much of a downside.

It has a lot of universities, and the programmers are quite good (the ex-CTO of Modcloth? had a video where he pointed out that the Pittsburgh office was quite a bit better than the SV office). Your factory workers will be out toward the airport and your knowledge workers will be downtown. It's a very old city, so it is quite a bit more pedestrian friendly than most. And, because it's old, it has a really good arts scene. And Pittsburgh has a _woefully_ underutilized airport.

The only downsides are weather: 1) Lack of sunlight--Pittsburgh is almost as bad as Seattle in that respect and 2) Winter--Northeast winters _SUCK_.

<comment><USER14> Winters in Pittsburgh aren't that bad, especially the past few. There's a major storm here and there, but very rarely is anything major shutdown.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I live in the Denver metro area and I think this assessment is pretty spot-on. The only downside is rush hour traffic around downtown can add 15-20 minutes to the commute. However, these is a significant light rail presence.

I would say quality of life is great for anyone that likes to do anything outdoors: fishing, skiing, mountain bikes, dirt bikes, etc.

And there's a pretty strong community of software engineers here.

<comment><USER16> I lived in Denver for the past 2 years and agree with this assessment as well. The light rail has expanded lines in recent years to the airport and I have read that the plan is for that expansion to continue to eventually link Denver and Boulder. Amazon could build their huge complex anywhere in that area and workers could take public transportation to the office.

<comment><USER17> I graduated from CU-Boulder in 2009 and have lived in the Denver-metro area ever since. I could very easily see Amazon drawn to the Boulder-Longmont- Lafayette triangle if not in Denver proper.

Lots of growth here in the last 5 years especially. Many long-time locals are complaining about the cost-of-living going up, though.

<comment><USER18> Having been in Seattle for nearly a decade now, Denver is one place that I'd absolutely consider at some point. I love mountains and sunshine, which Denver gets in spades. Having grown up in MT, the mountains around Seattle are beautiful, but never feel quite right to me—mountains should be dry!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The major factor that isn't mentioned: state income tax. Washington has no income tax. It's no small coincidence that it has so many billionaires living there.

But Seattle is trying to impose a 2.5% income tax on high earners. This might be Jeff's way of reminding them they have to compete to keep his business around.

Also, a 0% income tax rate makes a HUGE difference in attracting tech workers who earn $200k+...

<comment><USER11> Boo hoo for rich people?

<comment><USER19> Are you lost? This is a site full of software industry types. Everyone here is either "rich" already or trying to be...

<comment><USER11> Very true.

I'm just here to spy on what the well-to-do and techno-utopianists are up to and want to inflict on the rest of us in the future. ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think a lot of cities would be well advised to steer clear, Amazon would have a pretty crazy distortion effect. It might make sense in Denver, but I can't imagine them fitting into any smaller city (~3m).

I expect it to end up in a former rustbelt or midwestern city explicitly eliminated in this article in the 'strong job growth' phase. Dallas, Chicago, Minneapolis, Detroit, Philadelphia.

<comment><USER21> Denver only has 700k in the city itself, and ~2.7M in the metro area.

<comment><USER20> Yeah I'm saying that, for example, the effects on Raleigh would be pretty overwhelmed at 2m, if Denver could even handle it at 3.3m. Contrast with Minneapolis at 3.8m, Dallas at 7.3m, and Chicago at close to 10m on the money.

I'm using the CSA definitions because I think that's a better way of comparing wildly different cities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > We asked the economist David Albouy to rank these metro areas for us with an > index he uses to measure how much people would be willing to sacrifice, in > terms of housing costs and commutes, to live in desirable places. On that > basis, we cut Charlotte, N.C.

My experience being that neither housing costs nor commute times being horribly bad around CLT - this bums me out. It's actually a great city with lots of nature around it, ATL is 4hr drive, housing costs in nearby areas (Fort Mill, SC e.g.) aren't anywhere near as bad as say Atlanta suburbs. It's not NYC to be sure - culture wise not very hip but I did not think the mid- career experienced people Amazon would be hiring would mind that at all.

Maybe the NYT was too literal when they considered CLT or maybe I don't understand what exactly the sacrifice would be in terms of housing costs and commutes.

<comment><USER23> I spent the first 18 years of my life growing up in Charlotte during the 90s and 00 housing and bank boom, and have revisited friends there fairly often since. Can't say I am rooting for Amazon to locate a HQ there.

Downtown has never really had any appeal for an under-21 besides Discovery Place (is that even still around?) which is more geared for the pre-13 age group. Post-21 more recently it seems to have been revitalized but having been spoiled by Raleigh, still feels sterile and kind of bland. Even in NoDa, where all those creative people have already been priced out of that community.

I'm definitely still colored by my hatred of bland suburbia of that city, which afforded teenagers absolutely nothing to do except shop or watch movies in the theatre. It really is geared for the traditional suburban parent types through and through. Compared to other parts of NC with a diverse cultural scene (Asheville and Raleigh) Charlotte drops the diversity for an increased price.

It also has the unfortunate location of being inside NC, whose state politics have been anything but sane the past half decade, and the local college is also overshadowed heavily by Chapel Hill, Duke, and State in the Triangle area. That's the metro area I would expect Amazon to pick over Charlotte, as there's a lot of non-hip tech companies already established there. And even a few hip ones like Epic Games.

<comment><USER24> More importantly, the BBQ in the Triangle is superior to that of Charlotte.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is such a terrible way to make a decision like this. The types of filters they used were completely arbitrary,the filtering level for each type of filter was arbitrary, and the number of filters they used was arbitrary. Plus, they didn't even include Toronto, who is probably a very strong contender.

<comment><USER26> I agree, there is strong factors to consider a location outside of the US. Despite the NYT analysis, I think this is going to end up in Boston. I don't buy the "there is no room for the location" argument. It is like they've never been to Boston. Sure you can't drop it in the downtown but there are lots of areas in need of redevelopment very near by. I also think that Boston has a _huge_ advantage in terms of talent pool. Look at all the top schools in Boston, Amazon needs the talent more than the money.

Additionally, I think this is a game. They've already decided where, they just want leverage to get a better deal there. This isn't like the Giga factory where they just need manual labor so anywhere would work. I'll be interested to see where it ends up though.

<comment><USER27> Boston has colleges and universities, and yes, they are amazing.

But guess what? Recent college graduates are happy to move to places with better weather and lower costs of living, and they do. We interview top tier people looking to relocate from Boston all the time.

I say that as someone who loves Boston, and especially like the culture and people.

<comment><USER26> I meant it largely in the local ability for intern programs, partnerships with the various internal school "labs", etc. You also have a better chance at attracting institutional talent as they can switch without moving or upsetting their life. Look at the huge exodus of staff from CMU to Uber, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Why doesn't Amazon choose a city that _almost_ meets their criteria and invest the wealth they generate there back into the city? Then we get more good cities instead of overinvesting into any single city.

<comment><USER29> Well Amazon isn't a charity; why would you expect them to care about anything other than their own criteria?

<comment><USER30> For the same reason my company used to, I'm retired, sponsor the local little league sports teams - even though the audiences were absolutely never going to be clients?

Sometimes, you do the right thing, just because it's the right thing to do. It wasn't an investment. It was just giving back to the community that housed us.

I guess you could argue that it improved employee morale? I don't think any of our employees even had kids on the team.

<comment><USER29> I'm not denying that companies do charitable things, but I think where to build your headquarters is much more fundamental than whether to give money to a kids' sports team. Would your former company have made decisions about the parameters of their core business based on the interests of Little League?

<comment><USER30> I'm not convinced that their office location is a core business decision. Wherever they go, people will also go. They could HQ in Mozambique and still attract top talent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Instead of two headquarters, why not 50 headquarters? They have one of the largest and most reliable networks in the world - use it! With offices spread across the country (continent, even), they could hire from a talent pool that dwarfs Seattle and Denver. They wouldn't have to find 100+ contiguous acres for sale in one metropolis. City Council elections wouldn't have to be of strategic importance. Likewise for disaster preparedness. They already have distribution centers all over the place.

<comment><USER32> The same reason Google, Facebook, Apple, et all still bus employees 40 miles south from SF to their offices -- having people together in one office (or campus) makes them more productive, no matter how much technology you throw at it.

<comment><USER33> Most communication in an office still takes place virtually just as you do remotely. Within a company located in the same physical area you might communicate across floors, across buildings, across campuses.

Yes it is nice to have small groups together on regular basis in meetings, integration sessions, brainstorming but for the most part jobs are virtual even in an office today with chat, email, text, phones, video chat, etc. Everyone in one location is both a single point of failure and doesn't scale well to employees changes, i.e. people move frequently, skill is available in different technologies not always in one location, etc. Better virtual communication in companies even on-site is needed, being in one place without that can actually put a damper on performance and ability to ship.

<comment><USER32> Yet the evidence from major tech companies suggests that physical presence is worth the time and expense to bus most employees to a central campus. Apple is spending $5B on their new building to house 13,000 employees together. Amazon is committing $5B to their new campus to house 50,000 employees.

<comment><USER31> There is evidence that they haven't reached their limits with vertical scaling as Amazon apparently has.

<comment><USER32> I think Amazon has reached the limits of Seattle -- Seattle can't build housing or transportation fast enough to match Amazon's growth, so starting somewhere fresh makes sense.

Plus there's the redundancy benefit -- if the Pacific Northwest suffers the catastrophic earthquake they are predicting, Amazon's HQ2 will live on (and make a fortune shipping supplies to the area).

<comment><USER31> Building a second HQ is horizontal scaling unless they plan to consolidate at the new location and continue vertical scaling from there. It sounds like they're actually distributing the HQ across two locations, not just building a specialized satellite office. (All of the mentioned companies have those.)

If computing works as an analogy, decoupling a system enough to spread across two servers without one being the true master/head is already half the battle. But you'd rarely design a distributed system only to run it on two servers. The synchronization overhead wipes out most of the gains. Once you have the architecture, you might as well move to commodity servers that are collectively cheaper and more powerful than two top-of-the-line servers.

I wonder if there is an organizational equivalent of the CAP theorem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I was thinking about this today and realized something about tech/finance/entertainment... hubs.

The best way to get one is by having major players in the industry set up shop there. Cities hope the next big tech company will be in their city, but lots of the employees that switch companies to help startups grow come from top companies and it is way easier to get people to switch companies if they don't have to move.

Seattle has become a good tech hub due to amazon and microsoft.

I think whatever city wins this will have a massive long term tech hub boost because of it. This will probably be many times better for a cities economy than some factory.

<comment><USER35> Is Amazon looking for a tech hub or a place for administrative functions.

Recall Microsoft moving all of their admin stuff to the Midwest somewhere.

<comment><USER34> > Is Amazon looking for a tech hub or a place for administrative functions.

"The jobs will likely be broken down into the following categories: executive/management, engineering with a preference for software development engineers (SDE), legal, accounting, and administrative." [1]

SDE is clearly mentioned but who know the actual distribution.

[1]: [https://images-na.ssl-images- amazon.com/images/G/01/Anything...](https://images-na.ssl-images- amazon.com/images/G/01/Anything/test/images/usa/RFP_3._V516043504_.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Not sure if Washington, DC includes Northern Virginia (Ashburn, Herndon, Reston). AWS is already here. And a ridiculous amount of fiber seems to out through this area. I see new data centers popping up quite often. And prices are crazy expensive but probably still cheaper than the city itself.

So I would pick this area if I was them. Though not sure how I'd personally feel about prices and traffic going up even higher with Amazon's second HQ moving in.

<comment><USER27> I currently live between Denver and Boulder. Lived in the DC area for 8 years.

It's an AWFUL place to build an HQ, but Amazon might do it anyway.

1) Salaries are artificially inflated by competition from the Govt and Govt contractors.

2) Traffic is nightmarishly bad.

3) Housing is incredibly expensive

4) Tech skills aren't as high as the stats indicate. The gov't and contractors have an amazing way of creating people whose titles indicate they know what they're doing, but they don't. See healthcare.gov fiasco for an illustration. A senior data engineer in DC is someone who knows SQL and Informatica, as opposed to someone that can actually do real tech. The intelligence agencies have awesome talent, but they have enormous salaries inflated by their security clearances and you're not going to get them.

5) Weather fucking sucks. I lived there 8 years, it sucks.

6) Quality of life just isn't good. Average commute times and cultural amenities are bad.

<comment><USER36> Heh.

Yeah it's a mix of tech companies and gov. + gov contractors. A lot of people seem to work for the "State Dept." here (cough CIA cough) or other such agencies.

Tech talent is varied as you say. There are a lot of tech companies, some of Amazon's AWS is here, and there Microsoft, Google and others. They are probably dwarfed by Lockheed, Booz, Northrop and "We put butts in seats" ManTech but overall at least the NoVa area seems tech-y enough.

Traffic is not bad if you don't have to get on the beltway or go all the way to DC in rush hour. And there is Metro, with all the hate and issues they've been having it works and is better than other cities I've lived in.

> Housing is incredibly expensive

Compared to Midwest or South it is ridiculously expensive. But out in suburbs (and not DC proper) it's more manageable than Seattle, SF, NY and such it seems.

> 5) Weather fucking sucks. I lived there 8 years, it sucks

True, true. Though it's fall now. Finally a few weeks of nice cool mornings when opening windows feels nice. And I do like the mountains out West. Skyline drive, hiking and the small towns and farms.

> 6) Quality of life just isn't good. Average commute times and cultural > amenities are bad.

I just tried not to commute and lived closed to work. Now work from home. Now you might ask why would I still stay in this area, and that would be a good question. So far it inertia mostly and maybe the idea that it's probably safer to stay in a tech area if had to wanted to switch jobs and working from home wasn't an option any more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Absolutely love, despite the fact that it's mentioned numerous times that Amazon is searching all of NA for its second hq, that both Canada, and Mexico are completely ignored. This is despite the fact that Toronto is currently the continents fastest growing tech market due to a lot of factors that would be of incredible interest to a behemoth like Amazon. Feels a like a bit of a snub of the thumb by NYT on that one...

<comment><USER38> As they explained in the article:

> _(With apologies to Canada, we've set aside Toronto and several other large > cities because they're not included in most of the data sets we've used to > determine which places meet Amazon's needs.)_

<comment><USER29> If the NYT were intellectually honest, that would have been the point at which the editor said "okay, this is pointless, let's not do the article".

Reporting results you know are flawed is not the correct response to discovering that it's impossible to get non-flawed results.

<comment><USER37> Exactly! As I mentioned in my reply to this comment, if they actually used the platitudes of data available on the subject - instead of clearly cherry - Toronto would easily be in the top 3, at the very least. The fact that they admit that the data they _chose_ didn't mention Toronto doesn't help their case any.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I live in Atlanta. I was hopefully it would be the final pick...but when I got down to the section about being able to move around the city easily, I knew we'd be cut.

Not going to complain about traffic/mass-transit here...but it's a known issue and we supposedly lost another bid (can't think of the company here) because of traffic. We did get a few others...Mercedes-Benz for one.

</comment><comment><USER40> I think Rahm might be able to pull it off for Chicago. I could see Amazon moving into the Old Post Office, partially for the symbolism, partially for the convenience.

<comment><USER41> This could actually be a cool idea. It seems like the Fulton Market boom flopped and all the real estate went to condos and luxury apartments. Moving a major tech hub into the loop could have some interesting outcomes like balancing the opportunities for people who don't have easy access to the near north and west sides.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Glad to see Columbus off the list and hope it stays that way, if we must give tax breaks, I'd rather it be to small businesses, not monopolies.

</comment><comment><USER43> I'm surprised none of the comments here highlight the time zone benefit that one of the east coast options would give them. Having a large group of employees still based in the US, yet able to sensibly overlap with Europe is a huge deal.

In the same way that Portland is too close physically, Denver doesn't gain you "anything" for timezone diversity. They might offer the sweetest financial package, but it still seems like a wasted opportunity.

</comment><comment><USER44> When the hq2 news first broke, Denver was the first city to pop into my mind, without really thinking about it. And I've never even _been_ to Denver, just the airport.

<comment><USER45> I've visited Denver many times -- but I had the same immediate thought. Or Kansas City.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> And those of us in Utah say... "Wait, no, we have Universities here, and could totally support Amazon." Then we think about the urban sprawl of SLC, and look at the outdoors and think about how crowded it has gotten already at Arches and Zion and say... "Yes, OK. Denver sounds good."

<comment><USER47> It wouldn't work in SLC for a variety of reasons.

Utah really needs some sort of excellence (lab/institute/etc...) in engineering/science/high tech research that's not just biotech, in addition to a more diverse workforce, to really be a next-level tech environment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I don't think Amazon is actually "looking" for a new headquarters so much as asking for a sweetheart deal to do business there, sort of like how cities will spend absurd amounts of money to woo sports teams.

</comment><comment><USER49> The Twin Cities (AKA Minneapolis) perhaps doesn't scale well on the "raw growth" charts, but the region has a strong track record for being a very good place for corporate headquarters. By metropolitan area, it ranks first among the 30 largest metropolitan areas in the number of Fortune 500 companies per capita. It's also a major knowledge hub for shipping logistics, which is why Amazon opened an office there related to that work.

I'm not really jazzed about the idea of Amazon moving in, but don't discount the Twin Cities here, it's a very strong contender.

</comment><comment><USER50> Actually I would challenge the idea Houston doesn't have enough of the professionals required.

Houston was eliminated as not having enough white collar workers. Yet they left in Austin which is far smaller because at least 12.5 % base of their base has the right skills.

It makes sense to compare desired jobs versus the general population but not without context. Seriously with six million+ people here, do you really need 12.5% or 750,000 of them to be what Amazon would consider hiring when they only need 50,000 people?

I find the idea absurd: Amazon could fill their entire job quota out of the current worker pool.

<comment><USER51> Off the top of my head, two main points for why Austin is better-suited than Houston for a tech HQ:

\- UT (@Austin) means a large pool of fresh grads from a top-10 CS program they can recruit.

\- Existing presence of both Amazon itself and other tech companies (Google, FB, MS, etc) means they don't have to relocate workers, and it's a lot easier to convince SDEs from other companies to jump ship.

<comment><USER27> Gay employees can't marry. That's all you need to say no.

<comment><USER52> Gay marriage has been legal in all 50 states for 2 years now

<comment><USER27> You're right. I'm a moron. However, I'd like to point out that Texas state gov't doesn't send a big "welcome" message of tolerance and inclusion to LGBTQ community.

<comment><USER53> Houston was the first city in the US to elect an openly lesbian mayor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> > At this point, though, we're going to eliminate Portland, because it makes > little sense for the company to put a second headquarters so close to > Seattle.

Nonsense. Most or all of the reasons people have speculated on for why they want a second headquarters work as long as it is not in the same state as Seattle.

Portland is only three hours from Seattle by car. That's close enough that it is not unreasonable for someone at one office to make an occasional day trip to the other. That could give some flexibility they would not get if the offices were farther apart.

<comment><USER27> I live between Denver and Boulder. My brother lives in Portland.

I think Portland is great, but I think it would be a mistake.

1) The lack of sunlight in Portland is the same as Seattle. There are a ton of people who just won't live in places like this. It's actually allowed my company to easily recruit people from places like LA who won't consider cloudy, rainy places due to Seasonal Affective Disorder.

2) Portland has bad traffic. Shockingly bad for it's size.

3) The airport is nice, but small. Flights aren't often direct.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Denver is not going to make the cut. Housing prices are already growing at 10% yoy. Add an Amazon to that and you're going to be Seattle in about 18 months.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/troymcmullen/2017/05/03/denver-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/troymcmullen/2017/05/03/denver- home-prices-continue-to-rise/#bbc81d923039)

</comment><comment><USER56> Portland would win if it wasnt so close to Seattle

</comment><comment><USER57> Since Bezos has a house and newspaper in D.C. but D.C. itself isn't suitable, I'm thinking "distance from D.C." is a major unmentioned criteria and the main point is to get suburbs and nearby cities to compete. I'll guess Baltimore.

Unfortunately, I suspect a lot of places will offer plenty of bribes ("tax benfits") that should be illegal.

</comment><comment><USER58> I'm a native of Louisville, KY and while I was excited to see them on the original list of cities, I can understand why it might not make it. To me, Louisville is a great place to live; we are average in almost every way possible. So, we get snow but not blizzards, rain but not hurricanes, heat but not heat waves, etc... We also have a lot of growth potential and plenty of room to expand.

The place we falter, IMHO, is the social aspect; it's just not cool to live/work here. Sure we have Churchill Downs (The Kentucky Derby) and quite a lot of bourbon but I'm not sure that makes up for the lack of cool places to live and out downtown shuts down after 5PM. Still, if Amazon HQ showed up I'm sure those things would change pretty quickly. $50MM and 50,000 extra people have that effect. :)

</comment><comment><USER59> Grand Rapids, MI is just WAITING for something like this to turn it into a major city. It has an awesome culture and a ton of interesting things happening. However, the available tech job pool is still low and what jobs do exist are typically at non-tech companies who happen to employ tech workers.

<comment><USER60> It's not easy to get in and out of GR. Airline connectivity was one of Amazon's criteria.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> I've lived between Denver and Boulder for a couple of decades now, and my gut reaction is that Denver/Boulder is probably the type of area that Amazon is looking for to attract talent. Louisville, CO (outside Boulder) is often ranked #1 or #2 for great places to live, and Louisville has the abandoned Storagetek campus (~432 acres) and immediate access to HWY36 and the 470 Tollway. Whether or not adding a mega-campus of 50,000 to the 80027 zip code (or frankly, even one 20 minutes south to Denver proper) is good for the Corridor is another conversation entirely.

</comment><comment><USER62> San Diego would be an awesome choice. Great weather. Burbs are good for families. Beach is not far.

</comment><comment><USER63> This is going to sound crazy and I have no idea of the "Willingness to pay to play" aspect but...

Nashua New Hampshire.

\- Easy reverse commute from Boston

\- Easy access to Boston schools

\- New Hampshire is a business friendly state

\- Plenty of cheap office space

\- No income or sales tax

And, if a larger[1] company moves into the area it will make the commuter rail to Boston project the city has been trying to push a no brainer.

It is even already in one of the highlighted areas of the article (the Boston highlighted region covers Nashua).

[1] It is already home to the headquarters an entire large subdivision of BAE Systems, as well an Oracle office, EMC, Fidelity, and an Amazon distribution center.

</comment><comment><USER64> Notwithstanding the NYT process, it would be interesting to see if Amazon can find a spot that does not fit all the criteria itself, but is situated such that people can be pulled (by lower cost of living) to the place from nearby areas with talent. An example of this would be the Sacramento / Davis area.

The Mexico possibility is also very intriguing, though it seems difficult to make it work with the safety and language issues.

</comment><comment><USER65> Didn't Amazon say North America, not United States?

</comment><comment> shawn-butler I wonder if there is a study of these "sweetheart" municipal discretionary tax incentives deals? I have to imagine very few, if any, ever achieve the ROI the politicians claim and usually on top of non-tax incentives.

Would be interesting to see some actual data.

These people in power make these deals with little public oversight, usually negotiated in secret, knowing full well they won't have to deal with the long term impacts.

<comment><USER66> Can't the residents vote the deal down if they are not happy with it? Just curious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Oh cool Boston is making it pretty far (I live and grew up here)

> _… and workers can easily get around — and out of town …_

Haha yup and that's when it drops off- WAIT WHAT??

<comment><USER68> I'm surprised DFW was knocked out at that stage too. From what I hear traffic is horrible in Denver.

<comment><USER69> People say traffic is bad in LA, but Seattle is next level congestion.

<comment><USER70> LA #1 woohoo [http://www.businessinsider.com/us-cities-ranked-worst- traffi...](http://www.businessinsider.com/us-cities-ranked-worst- traffic-2017-8/#15-austin-received-a-score-of-25-meaning-it-took- commuters-25-more-time-to-travel-anywhere-in-the-city-thats-a-3-increase- from-2016-showing-traffic-conditions-have-worsened-1)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Charlotte doesn't have a good cost of living (or whatever the metric was)? Last I saw it was one of the best for wages/job ratio.

</comment><comment><USER72> I am voting for KC.

</comment><comment><USER73> Amazon made it clear that it was looking for "someplace in North America"... there are 2 other countries you've left out with metro areas that fit at least some of the criteria.

<comment><USER29> I would be shocked if Amazon put its headquarters anywhere where English is not the primary language. That leaves Toronto and Vancouver, unless I'm forgetting somewhere.

<comment><USER54> Parts of Mexico could end up satisfying that if Congress does not act on DACA. It would be interesting if a company opened facilities in Mexico with the specific purpose of recruiting from deported DACA beneficiaries.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> "workers can easily get around — and out of town" \- Washington DC makes the cut, that's a joke, 470 and beltway is one of the most congested roads in the US.

</comment><comment><USER75> Happy to see Columbus on the list, shame our tech growth isn't quite at the other state's levels right now (although I think it will be in the future!)

</comment><comment><USER76> > The company has asked for very specific information on all the state, > regional and local incentives communities are willing to offer, and the > timelines for how long it would take to approve them. Amazon concludes its > proposal by stressing that this a "competitive project." So let the > competition among cities begin!

Sigh. I know these could be good in some situations, but sometimes I wish cities had a most favored company law: every business that employs people gets the same tax benefits as the company that got the best deal. Cities could only agree to things that were good for businesses generally, rather than letting one or two ignore the rules for five years before they suddenly relocate to shop for a better deal.

Relevant Planet Money: [http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/05/04/476799218/episo...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/05/04/476799218/episode-699-why- did-the-job-cross-the-road)

<comment><USER77> That works as long as there are no other cities playing the game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> The article fails to take weather as part of the equation. Did not address green energy. My thoughts are DFW will be one of the top contenders.

</comment><comment><USER79> For Europeans to come and work in USA, a West Coast city would be better - Washington, New York, Miami, boston ...

<comment><USER80> I think you meant East Coast? But as far as immigration is a factor, it would make more sense to optimize for access to Asia.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> Poorly researched.

They kicked Sacramento off the first round "1 million or more" yet there are 2 million in the greater Sacramento area, strong job growth and local economy, affordable housing, and decent tech chops (ok not the Bay Area by a long shot). The SMA has no detectable boundaries between cities; they just blend together.

I wonder how many other cities were eliminated due to poor research.

<comment><USER82> Sacramento was kicked off for poor job growth, not population. Every city on the list met the population criteria.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> Please no. Leave Denver alone.

<comment><USER83> Why, can you be more specific

<comment><USER84> Because the amenities and attractions and character of the city are being ruined by the flood of people moving here.

<comment><USER83> Fair enough

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> They've already spent a ton and bought probably 1M square feet in New York. I know it's expensive as hell, but I don't how that slows them down at all. It's the default first choice for any big business on the east coast.

</comment><comment><USER86> I think Ottawa, Canada would fit the bill too.

</comment><comment><USER87> Boston has crumbling infrastructure. A Big NO

<comment><USER88> It really doesn't. Big dig and associated/dependent projects have taken care of a lot that.

Also "Boston"!= Boston...which is basically a euphemism for Eastern Massachusetts, Northern RI, and Souther NH. You could do this project in Nashua, Worcester, Providence, Waltham, outside 128, and it would make double or triple the cost sense of downtown Boston/Cambridge/Somerville.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> It will probably land in Reno. Just my prediction.

<comment><USER90> I agree, Nevada is able to provide the largest tax abatements which is probably going to be the deciding factor (helped recruit GigaFactory, Las Vegas Raiders etc). 300 days of sunshine, cheap real state, low cost of living and close proximity to 15 ski resorts, plus 45 minute flights to Seattle/Silicon Valley.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> Why not Australia? XD

</comment><comment><USER92> _All of Denver collectively tells NYT to shut the hell up_

</comment><comment><USER93> I think Amazon has already selected Toronto (or possibly somewhere else in Ontario like Kitchener-Waterloo or Windsor) and is just running this 'contest' to extract the best deal they can get. I don't see any reason for dual HQs unless they are hedging against the risk they may have to abandon their current HQ and the biggest threat they face is anti-monopoly actions by a hostile government. Any secondary HQ is going to be outside of the USA and they've already eliminated Europe and Asia.

No city in the USA can compete with Toronto on the basis of legal risk, cheap labour (senior software devs top out around $90k usd in Toronto) and population/infrastructure

<comment><USER94> > I don't see any reason for dual HQs unless

A huge one: Seattle is starting to feel a bit like a company town. This has all sorts of practical considerations, like labor cost and real estate availability.

For example, from [https://www.geekwire.com/2017/how-seattles-office-market- bec...](https://www.geekwire.com/2017/how-seattles-office-market-became-a- modern-day-gold-rush-thanks-to-amazon-and-a-deep-roster-of-out-of-town-tech- companies/): Amazon "takes up approximately 20 percent of Seattle's office inventory, one of the highest concentrations in the country by a single corporate entity," and Amazon anticipates 50% growth in square footage between 2016 and 2020.

tl;dr: the strongest reasons for 2 HQs aren't political.

</comment></comment><comment><USER95> This violates the same principle as:

"Dear NYT, We Decided the Stories You'll Be Reporting on for You"

"Dear John Smith, We Picked Your Next Girlfriend for You"

<comment><USER96> John Smith put out a document outlining his preferences and released a document 'submit your proposal" ([https://www.amazon.com/amazonhq2](https://www.amazon.com/amazonhq2)).

<comment><USER95> The New York Times is a newspaper, not a city. And ultimately the decision rests with Amazon, not anyone else. The wording of their headline should reflect that, because the way it is written currently is quite disrespectful.

<comment><USER97> The headline is clearly meant to be tongue-in-cheek, as is the article itself, at least to some degree.

<comment><USER45> Totally! (And, the NYT scootches closer to The Onion)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


AWS Amps Up Support Products - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcworld.com/article/215785/amazon_web_services_improves_support_offerings.html <comment><USER2> _the greater of $15,000 per month or 10 percent of a customer's monthly AWS usage fees_

$15,000 seems pricey, doesn't it? You could hire 2-3 full time sysadmins for that price, and they would be available to do other things as well. Although, for a company who could stand to lose millions during an hour of downtime, 15 minute response time from someone at Amazon would be a bargain.

<comment><USER3> Ask someone who works at a bank what mainframe support from IBM costs. Over $1,000,000 per year is not uncommon.

Also, I'm fairly sure this $15,000 is intended to be in support of an internal team of sys admins, not in place of them.</comment></comment>


The Second Coming Of Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/11/technology/facebook-zuckerberg-home.pr.fortune/index.html

<comment><USER2> I kind of feel as though Facebook's time and opportunity for mobile domination has passed (I could be completely wrong though). But having said that, is there any better alternative that has all of your high-school friends or that guy/girl you met last night on it? Facebook has become an everyday utility like Google for search and Wikipedia for information so anything is possible.

And the worries about betting it all on Android as opposed to iOS I think are the right ones. Android is a more open and democratic mobile operating system where no one central entity controls its direction nor it's appearance unlike Apple or Microsoft do. I think this is Google's advantage and weakness.

We'll see.

<comment><USER3> > Android is a more open and democratic mobile operating system where no one > central entity controls its direction

Except google.

The notable versions that are not strongly controlled by google are things like the amazon version on a kindle, which might as well not be android

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> On a tangent, where the author says "Have you ever seen anyone play Angry Birds on a desktop?", funnily enough I have. My 5yo son has played a lot of angry birds on my phone, 3 stars on all levels of space. then last xmas someone gave him a PC version of seasons. since then he refuses to play on my phone, stating that it is "much better" playing on the PC, citing the screen size and sound as the main reasons.</comment>


Are Airlines Overcharging for Fuel? - <AUTHOR> https://www.himynamesdave.com/2016/02/04/is-my-airline-overcharging-me-for-fuel/ <comment><USER2> Airlines often enter into forward supply contracts for fuel to hedge against spikes in fuel costs, so the price of the fuel for a flight today may have been set a year or more ago ago. However, even if the airline benefits from a drop in the price of fuel, it doesn't necessarily mean cheaper flights. Airlines don't operate on a "cost plus" basis - they set their prices based on the competitive environment. If the price rises, the airline gets to keep the extra profit[1]; if it drops, the airline's profits suffer[2].

Hopefully, the current low oil price will let the airlines lock in lower fuel prices for the next couple of years and competitive pressures will start to result in lower ticket prices next year.[3]

1: [http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2015/01/fuel- hedging...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2015/01/fuel-hedging-and- airlines)

2: [http://www.standard.co.uk/business/ryanair-boss-keeps- losing...](http://www.standard.co.uk/business/ryanair-boss-keeps-losing-by- hedging-his-bets-on-oil-price-6916104.html)

3: [http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-airlines-fuel-hedging- idUKK...](http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-airlines-fuel-hedging- idUKKCN0RM0FD20150922)

<comment><USER3> I still think this specific line on the bill should not be based on competitive environment, but on actual fuel cost, the whole ticket price is based on the competitive environment. I guess they want that line to look as big as possible, because it feels like it's not their fault they are charging us that much (last time on Ari France the whole section was labelled "taxes" and there was like 30%/70% fuel overcharge in the section).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Airline fuel costs are (were) largely hedged so the true cost to an airline isn't reflected in day-to-day fuel prices.

Worse yet - most airlines bet the wrong way on the movement of fuel prices and locked in expensive hedges that they've made huge losses on now.

Southwest were praised for locking in fuel prices when oil rallied[1] but since the market turned they have lost _$1.8 billion_ on their positions[2] Ryan Air locked themselves in for _3 years_ at ~$800-1000 per ton[3] Delta lost over $2 billion, United over $600 million[4]

Fuel was traditionally 20% of an airlines cost base but peaked up to 35% (see this[5] super interesting chart). The surcharges are noticed because a lot of airlines have restructured ticket pricing to the point where the 'base fare' is only 40-50% of ticket cost. One reason for this is that a lot of reward programs were restructured so that only the base fare is redeemed while the surcharges are paid (effectively devaluing frequent flyer miles)

But there is an even simpler reason why you likely weren't being overcharged for fuel: you were flying Qatar airways. The new batch of airlines from the gulf states have been making huge losses in an attempt to buy market.

[1] [http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=5918252](http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=5918252)

[2] [http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2016/01/25/airlines...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2016/01/25/airlines- fuel-price-bets-not-always-paying-off/79288102/)

[3] [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airlines-fuel-hedging- idUS...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airlines-fuel-hedging- idUSKCN0RM0FN20150922)

[4] [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-25/airlines-b...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-25/airlines- bet-on-long-oil-slump-after-millions-lost-to-hedging)

[5] [http://imgur.com/z874RuC.png](http://imgur.com/z874RuC.png)

<comment><USER5> Delta actually bought a refinery. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trainer_Refinery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trainer_Refinery)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've never given much thought to what the airlines might claim to be the breakdown of the sum I pay for the flight because the fixed costs don't really define the lump sum price anyway.

Competition is fierce enough to drive down those costs over which airlines have any control at all. I think that for any route worth its salt the prices are close enough to what's actually sustainable for the airline and not necessarily _that much_ higher. This is very different for more remote and less-used routes where one or two company might enjoy a geographical monopoly.

The thing is that the airlines make sure there's always something you can buy from at a crazy prize. The classic example might be the first class ticket for the next departing flight. Even each first class and business seat allows the airline to give a small discount for all economy seats because people are willing to pay a different price for things they value differently. Further, because seats are sold one by one, even economy seats can cost double or half depending on when and how you're buying them.

Personally, I book my flights somewhat in advance, picking a combination of flight times and prices that I find tolerable myself. The limits are all subjective and can change. But I don't care if I paid five dollars/euros/pounds more or less because of "passenger civil aviation security service fee" because the major factor for how much I end up paying is how the market works for airline tickets. If the fee was 2 pounds or 20 pounds, I might still be paying the same price. Or I could be paying a hundred pounds more (or less) for the ticket even if the fees would be a few dozens pounds less (or more).

</comment><comment><USER7> YQ has nothing to do with the cost or amount of fuel for a flight. It is also possible to partially or entirely eliminate the charges using a technique called fuel dumping: [http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2013/11/fuel- dumping](http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2013/11/fuel-dumping)

</comment><comment><USER8> British Airways is _notorious_ for having an unfavorably skewed ticket price to YQ surcharge ratio.

Part of the reason they do this is because it allows them to book revenue for "free" award tickets: since your miles only cover the ticket component of the package and none of the fuel surchages, they can wring money from passengers who would otherwise be dead weight on the balance sheet.

I recently booked an award ticket on BA metal (I know, mistake -- but it was an emergency) that cost me something like $500 in fuel surcharges and assorted taxes. As it turns out, in airline speak free doesn't actually mean free.

<comment><USER9> Some airlines actually apply those 'free' ticket taxes as if the ticket were a full, unrestricted ticket -- which award tickets are not.

I've had good luck with United though. A miles ticket from Europe to the US generally costs me between $90-$100 in fees. Not too bad considering the same one way might cost $1000-$2000.

British Airways seems to operate like British airports: a constant attempt to scrape every last cent (and goodwill) from passengers.

<comment><USER8> For nearly a decade, I lived in New York and managed to avoid BA for all my travel needs.

I recently moved to Doha and am working remotely for my company, with occasional trips back to the motherships in NY and London. Unless I fly ME3, BA is all that works for me.

Alas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I worked for a British based airline for a couple of years (before the fuel surcharges were introduced). Regarding tickets, economy (coach) tickets are not where airlines make their money, so we probably shouldn't look at the prices we pay for these tickets as data points relating to costs (fuel). It's not comparable to train or bus travel.

They make any profits with business class and first class tickets. These are the seat prices which may reflect the costs to operate. Economy seats are there to fill up the plane. They can run the flight and still make a profit if all the business class and first class seats are taken and no economy seats are there. This is why the adverts you see on TV are never about the economy class, but all about the business / first class / luxury class. Airlines only compete with each other on these luxury seats, they don't compete with economy seats.

<comment><USER11> I've taken quite a lot of flights where there either was no business or first class or, if there was a business class, it was only marginally more expensive than cattle^weconomy class. Traveling through South America for 14 months now, the average economy seat is about 80USD per hour of flight if bought directly at the airport. How do they make a profit if your calculation is correct? (And I am not talking about the probably heavily subsidized regional airlines that get you from one jungle airfield to another and are the only means of getting to lots of places.)

<comment><USER4> > How do they make a profit if your calculation is correct?

They don't.

Or freight.

<comment><USER12> Southwest makes money and they lack business class. Domestic routes rarely make money on biz class, and they are still profitable. Only international routes have significant biz class markups (believe me, I would pay a lot to sleep on an 11 hour flight).

Economy seats are probably more profitable than the airlines want to let on given that the experience is so miserable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> YQ surcharges are just another element an airline can choose to muck with to bump up or down the ticket price. As an end user I wouldn't bother reading anything into it - the total price is the total price regardless of how the airline choose to break it out.

The interesting part from the carrier point of view relates to how an airline prorates out the total amount collected in codeshare or interline agreements, and whether corporate discounted fares offered apply to the YQ portion or not (hint they usually don't) and whether all governments have caught up in taxing these in the same manner as a regular fares. I would think of it as a construct for creative accounting more than anything else.

</comment><comment><USER14> I guess that part is inflated as you suggest, but you flew Qatar economy from LHR to BKK for I guess under 400gbp all-in. Even if the real cost of fuel was close to $100 there still not a lot of gold in the deal, the other mandatory fees essentially mean that Qatar have less than $100 per flight leg to cover their costs. Given Qatar is one of the best on this route I'd say you still got a bargain. BTW how was the dreamliner in comparison to the a380 iirc they were using 777s last time.

<comment><USER15> Qatar's 787 was pretty uncomfortable for me on a 6 hour flight. 9 across seating and a very tight seat pitch (31 inch) is not ideal for that long a flight. The QR 777 I took had slightly wider seats (still 9 across) and a little more leg room but much more noise in the cabin compared with a 787 or A380.

I've only flown Emirates A380, but for me it beats both easily in terms of comfort.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Depends what they hedged at.

<comment><USER9> Exactly this. Fuel costs for airlines aren't reflected in the oil price today, but of the oil price covered by their hedging contracts. Hedging, as you obviously know is a tactic that has the goal of making fuel prices 'flat.' Gary Kelly architected Southwest's fuel hedging strategy and pioneered the practice in airlines; it was the reason Southwest was profitable during the $120 per barrel era. You can bet airlines are loading up now on futures contracts.

My point is that fuel surcharges and costs today don't reflect the price paid at the pump.

<comment><USER8> I wonder how WN is doing now that oil is at $20 a barrel...

Hedges cut both ways.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm more of the mind that shipping companies (UPS, Fedex) are overcharging. Each raises their rates approximately 5% every year, significantly higher than the rate of inflation. And, each has a fuel surcharge tied to current pricing.

</comment><comment><USER18> I am regularly flying through Europe for almost nothing, $30-$40. It's way cheaper than train tickets now. London to NYC and back for $300 is not unheard of.

I pity the airlines and wonder where do they make money from.

</comment><comment><USER19> I've been a business traveler for over 20 years and the average price I've paid for a coast to coast flight in the last 5 years is less than the previous 15. The perks have gone down but think about how cheap jet fuel was 20 years ago. I suspect the competition in the airline business has been less stable with the discount flyers that have started up. There has certainly been more consolidation.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think there's something wrong with the math

Efficiency numbers quoted are per pax for full planes (I guess considering the max legal amount of seats)

Also, the Qatar 787-8 has 254 seats, 232 in Economy

<comment><AUTHOR> There was some error in my maths on the first pass. Fuel Surcharge quoted is for a return journey. Originally I calculated Fuel Surcharge for round-trip against one-way fuel costs.

Analysis does assume flight are operating at 100% capacity, which is likely to be improbable.

Airlines can mix seating depending on 787-8. I got the figure 232 here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Is this taking account full occupancy? If the flight is only 70% booked, wouldn't the fuel surcharge per passenger by higher?

<comment><USER22> The passenger load factor has generally been going up since 2008. See e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways#Business_trend...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways#Business_trends)

<comment><USER23> Still a valid point when the gallons per passenger calculation is likely based on a full load, and his flight was more likely to have had an 80% load than a full load.

<comment><AUTHOR> Analysis does assume flight are operating at 100% capacity, which is likely to be improbable. But here's a thought; would airlines charge higher fuel surcharges p/pax for routes with lower ave. pax:capacity?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Airlines buy fuel contracts far in advance. You're paying 2015 prices throughout 2016.

Wait til 2017 for the real savings.</comment>


Keeping Time at NIST - <AUTHOR> https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/keeping-time-nist <comment><USER2> On laser cooling:

> Very basically what they did was use a specially tuned array of lasers to > bombard the atoms with photons from all angles. These photons are like > pingpong balls compared to the bowling-ball-like atoms, but if you have > enough of them, they can arrest the motion of the cesium atoms, slowing them > from about 130 meters per second to a few centimeters per second

Such a cool idea deserves a better brief explanation: Atoms absorb light in a specific frequency, and are pushed by it. If your light is at a slightly lower frequency, due to doppler effect only atoms that are moving towards you will absorb and be slowed down. Atoms going in other directions will be undisturbed. The net effect is a reduction of movement, hence cooling.

<comment><USER3> Oh wow, neat explanation, thanks! For some reason I always thought laser cooling was about "cornering" atoms in between laser beams. But then apparently from your explanation it's really only about finding the right laser color! Then you can beam it in pretty much any direction and it will result in a global reduction of the speed of atoms (aka temperature). Did I get that right?

<comment><USER2> Yes that's the general idea. Lasers are used because of their temporal coherence (i.e. they shine in a single, stable, frequency).

<comment><USER4> A critical part of a laser is coherency: all energy is at the same frequency _and_ phase. This is really what sets laser light apart from other kinds of light and what makes it such a useful science tool.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One other neat use of really accurate clocks: measure if the fundamental constants drift relative to each other.

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/andp.201800...](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/andp.201800364)

</comment><comment><USER6> I have an older friend who has always wanted an "atomic clock", and he bought one off of e-bay, an HP-5061b.... it almost worked right. Between the two of us, we got it working, and tuned to the right Zeeman frequency. Once we got the hang of repairing them, two was even better.... we put each one into the XY channels of an oscilloscope.... the pattern never shifted over hours... so cool!

The optical clocks and optical frequency combs mean there are devices that you can buy, with internal atomic clocks, that are effectively Frequency Counters, for blue light... that read down to the Hertz!

I want one of those when I'm older. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER7> I remember once seeing those NIST guys one evening at Dogfish Head Alehouse across the street talking physics and neutrinos. To measure time between two events, something needs to move faster than those events to perceive it. After a few beers, you'll be left with the check.

</comment><comment><USER3> I really wonder how we'll use that mega-accurate clock that takes like a second every gazillion years. Like the article said, GPS is great but even then you don't need such accuracy.

<comment> m-ee Calibrating slightly less accurate clocks. What those clocks are used for I have no idea, but there's times you need a good traceable measurement for some calibration of your own and your uncertainty stack can start to add up. The better, smaller, and cheaper NISTs equipment is the better your local cal lab will be and the easier your work is.

Try finding a thermometer setup that's better than 1 degree accurate from 0-400C. It might be more than you expect. Now imagine you want to measure some property of a sensor or material as function of temperature using your new thermometer, add in the cost of an oil baths and precision multimeters. Now say you want to create your own golden standard with the best precision you can muster, your expensive oil bath is looking lacking and you're buying Vienna mean standard ocean water...

<comment><USER8> Well said. The ability to better realize primary standards and disseminate that to secondary metrology labs from national standards is so critical.

It's the same reason I think the work done in changing the SI definition to physical constants is so critical. In a decade or so all secondary labs should have capabilities to measure directly to the definition of a unit without needing to do comparison measurements to national standards. To me it seems like the metrology equivalent of "open sourcing SI units"

<comment> m-ee It's important work and it can be surprisingly easy to run into the limits of your uncertainty. If you ask someone to measure a temperature in my experience 9/10 times they'll grab a type K thermocouple. Far fewer than 9/10 will tell you that the number they gave you is only guaranteed to be +/-3 degrees. That's good enough for a lot of applications but not all of them, and when something is really critical it helps to understand the full stack if your supplier/lab/coworker is making questionable claims about their accuracy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Perhaps not Strontium, but the other clock types they talk about, Rubidium and Caesium, are readily available commercially at quite affordable prices. Rubidium clocks in particular are very widely available and every RF lab will have one.

</comment><comment><USER10> I wonder how the "conversion" between cycles of different materials work. The spec says Cesium but it seems other clocks use different materials, how do you know X cycles in Cesium is Y cycles in Strontium for example

<comment><USER11> It is not possible to calculate the ratio between the transition frequencies in different atoms with anywhere near sufficient accuracy for metrological applications. Therefore, only Cesium clocks can serve as primary standards for the SI second. Other clocks can be calibrated to Cesium clocks in order to serve as secondary standards, but it is not possible to measure a frequency in Hz with an accuracy that is better than that of the best Cesium clocks. Probably the definition of the SI second will be changed at some point, but currently there are still too many possible candidate species and transitions without a clear favorite.</comment></comment>


NASA to Grow Marijuana on the Moon - <AUTHOR> http://www.newslo.com/nasa-to-grow-marijuana-on-the-moon/ <comment><USER2> I'm having a hard time believing these quotes. I am also not familiar with this linked site. Is this a joke?</comment>


Show HN: Learn more about compiler technologies with my in-depth tutorials - <AUTHOR> https://bit.ly/2JcKrzD <comment><USER2> A bit.ly link to the patreon page is autokilled here. The content looks interesting. Are your "contributions" to open source projects merged? Are they stand alone complements?

I looked at your previous submissions and I think that you have already submitted them. I think the "LLVM Heat Printer" is nice and has a potential for popular blog post, but you must write a longer blog post with a few examples and many heatmaps and explain a little more why your project is amazing and why it is better than the naïve approach. To get a popular post you must mix some interesting technical content with some interesting graphics that make the technical content easy to visualize. (I hope it's a good recipe, good luck with it.)

(Add a link to the patreon page at the bottom of the blog post.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the tips.

I have a patch of the LLVM Heat Printer being reviewed and will soon be available with LLVM.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Talented kid: what to do? - <AUTHOR> I am looking for ideas on what to do with my cousin's 8 year old (clearly gifted) kid. Ideas for pathways, scholarships, online courses, etc.
When Simon comes back from school, he entertains himself with math problems, and also creates for himself math problems and solves them. He's been moved to 6th grade algebra in school. He is a good reader. His other idea of fun is to play classical music on piano and compose new pieces. He is not socially awkward either: he just gets bored with most kids of his age, but enjoys smart kids and plays with them well. They live in Chicago.
His IQ been tested at 148 (very superior). Here's photo of his IQ report:
https://2nznub4x5d61ra4q12fyu67t-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IQ-1.jpg
Any ideas appreciated! Thanks. <comment><USER2> Math - Khan Academy has it mapped out all the way to calculus - Simon can go as fast and far as he wants if that approach interests him.

Music - I assume he is taking lessons - keep doing that and maybe get him exposed to someone that teaches music theory and composition as well as piano. Or, just encourage him to continue on his own in music. Not everything has to be turned into 'school'.

Make sure he has access to lots of good books. Take him on trips to a well stocked library and introduce him to various non-fiction sections. In pre- internet days, when I was a kid, I got to the point where my mom would take me to the public library once a week and I would come home with a stack of 5 to 10 books (majority fiction, but not all of them) and I would have read them all by the next week. My reading addiction was helped by the fact that my parents decided not to have television in the house until us kids moved away as young adults (oh the abuse we suffered! Maybe not.)

Make sure he has his own computer and access to the internet. Introduce him to Wikipedia.

If he has an interest in programming help him get over the starting gate by setting up his environment and walking him through some first lessons then take a more back seat and let him go.

Academically - try to get him situated in a school that has some experience working with gifted children.

<comment><USER3> Mensa. The bigger the city, the better their youth resources are. [http://chicago.us.mensa.org/kids/gifted_kids.php](http://chicago.us.mensa.org/kids/gifted_kids.php)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Lots of good suggestions here, but don't forget to offer up some challenges not related to the whole intelligence thing, at least not directly. Offer up some good fiction - maybe scifi is a good place to start. I was thinking Asimov, but there are many good authors in there. Throw on some Star Trek, SG-1, whatever. That's all good stuff for creativity, because it's nice to think about what's possible. Smart kids get taught a lot of stuff, but creativity is sometimes overlooked (although I don't suggest that in this case, given the music aspect).

</comment><comment><USER5> There have already been some good suggestions on programs / things to keep him busy, so I thought I'd throw in some things to consider when encouraging a smart kid.

While it's often tempting to praise a kid when they do something right by telling them they're smart, it can detract from the critical notion that success comes from meaningful practice. Some psychologists have made an interesting case for focusing on praising the work that they have put in. Smart kids may be at risk for overestimating the role intelligence plays in learning, and thereby be more fragile when encountering failure.

This article gives an overview: [http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/06/the- s-w...](http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/06/the-s- word/397205/)

</comment><comment><USER6> If he is in Chicago its worth targeting IMSA for junior and senior year of high school.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Mathematics_and_Scien...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Mathematics_and_Science_Academy)

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually, he's been admitted there and he is going next year. They received 50% off scholarship, but for my cousin it's still kinda daunting. But he is going!

<comment><USER7> Actually, it's Science and Arts Academy

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Astronomy. Get a telescope, join a meetup.

Programming. Make simple games in a language like Python.

Electronics. Start off a kit like snap circuits, then try to visit your local makerspace.

The game of Go. There is software for learning it, clubs (offline), as well as online teachers. The AGA keeps a list. Might also want to try Chess, but I prefer Go.

</comment><comment><USER9> "Governing a large country is like frying a small fish. You spoil it with too much poking."

\- [http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/taote-v3.h...](http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html)

</comment><comment><USER10> Expose him to new things, (including non-academic stuff or things he may not like initially such as sports) and get out of the way. Stress work and practice vs talent (see "the curse of the gifted").

</comment><comment><USER11> All I have to say is that it will probably work best to encourage and support rather than push him too hard. I see down thread he's going to high school next year; I wouldn't automatically shove him off to college after graduation. It can be really lonely at a big school when one is 6+ years younger than everyone else. He might be a candidate for unschooling.

</comment><comment><USER12> Reference books for whatever he's interested in. With that age, intellect, and drive, he will eat them up. Also support his interests even if he moves on easily.

Unlike others I don't think he will benefit from enrichment programs much. Even in talented-youth programs (e.g. CTY, where I've taught) teachers will find it difficult to challenge him, and it sounds like he is already self- motivated.

\----

EDIT now that I have a keyboard, to expound on the teacher thing: I've been on both the giving and receiving sides of talented-youth education. The problem for students with such high IQs is not that teachers don't _know_ things they don't (they certainly do), but that teachers often have no experience with correcting the mental models & processes such intelligent children develop.

E.g. when I was young, I developed (incorrect) "folk" theories as to how capacitors worked, or the meaning of dividing one by zero, etc. In both cases I was wrong, and teachers _told_ me I was wrong, but they couldn't explain _why_ I was wrong (and hence correct my underlying misconceptions). It wasn't until college that I would encounter instructors who had such a profound grasp of the subject that they could deconstruct my folk theories. (Not that my theories were deep; just that my misunderstandings were deeply rooted.)

On the flip side, during the years I was a teacher/tutor, I met maybe 2-3 students whom I could tell right away I couldn't help. I could have told them things they didn't know, sure, but not anything they couldn't have read from a book. There were no flaws in their reasoning skills that I was capable of understanding, let alone fixing.

To be a truly effective teacher for a highly inquisitive mind, you have to be at _least_ as intelligent, _and_ more knowledgable than the student. For someone so smart as your second cousin, it will be a very tough find.

\----

EDIT2: Academics aside, here is something cynical. If your family is not upper-class, and you are primarily concerned with the kid's _success_ rather than straight-up smarts, find a friend who is upper-class and have the kid hang out with them. As someone with a middle-class upbringing, as I've entered my 30s I've come to realize how tangible class is in terms of networking and "getting ahead in life" (if that's what you're into). You can switch class with a lot of work by being very good at what you do, but it's a lot easier if you already "fit in" with the upper class because that stuff rubbed off on you when you were young. (Again, I recognize this is somewhat cynical and others probably have very different ideas.)

</comment><comment><USER13> I would recommend looking at these programs:

[http://cty.jhu.edu/](http://cty.jhu.edu/)

<comment><USER12> Yep I've taught at CTY. Might not be challenging for IQ 148 though. (I say this as estimated 140+.) Also $$$. (Was invited to attend when I was younger but parents couldn't afford it. Usually classes have 1 public school student to 13 private.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > what to do?

Treat him/her as a normal kid.

</comment><comment><USER15> how about putting him in touch with the real life Scorpion [http://www.scorpioncomputerservices.com/](http://www.scorpioncomputerservices.com/) He sounds like the type of person they look for.

</comment><comment><USER16> He should work for Snapchat and design the next app that makes the world a better place.

<comment><USER7> He's determined to find a cure for cancer</comment></comment>


New Details on Skype Eavesdropping - <AUTHOR> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/new_details_on.html

<comment><USER2> Jibes pretty well with the theft of Glenn Greenwalds partners laptop just 2 days after he communicated over Skype that he would be sending the Snowden files to him.

"When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in [Rio de Janeiro] via Skype and told him I would send an electronic encrypted copy of the documents," Greenwald noted. "I did not end up doing it. Two days later his laptop was stolen from our house and nothing else was taken. Nothing like that has happened before. I am not saying it's connected to this, but obviously the possibility exists."

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/snowden- distribut...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/snowden-distributed- encoded-copies-of-nsa-docs-around-the-world/)

<comment><USER3> It also jives pretty well with the previous reports [1] of Skype hitting URLs that have been pasted into chat, as well as the removal of the decentralized bits of Skype in favor of centralized servers.

[1]: [http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/05/14/1516247/microsoft- rea...](http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/05/14/1516247/microsoft-reads-your- skype-chat-messages)</comment></comment>